[lbo-talk] Florida anomalies

[ravi]

Luke Weiger wrote:
> So, people, how convincing is this research?
> 
> -- Luke
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
> 
>><http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2004/0,4814,97614,00.html>
>>
>>University researchers challenge Bush win in Florida
>>  'Something went awry with electronic voting in Florida,' says the 
>>lead researcher
>>
>> <...>
>>The researchers said they used a widely accepted method of study 
>>known as Multiple-Regression Analysis. It is a statistical technique 
>>widely used in the social and physical sciences to distinguish the 
>>individual effects of many variables, which in this case included 
>>number of voters, median income, Hispanic population, change in voter 
>>turnout between 2000 and 2004, support for President Bush in the 2000 
>>election and support for Republican candidate Bob Dole in 1996.
>>
>>"No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, 
>>the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and 
>>electronic voting cannot be explained," said Hout. "The study shows 
>>that a county's use of electronic voting resulted in a 
>>disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. There is just 
>>a trivial probability of evidence like this appearing in a population 
>>where the true difference is zero -- less than one in a thousand 
>>chances."
>

in answer to your question (how convincing), a few more details are
necessary. it says above that they considered the effect of many
variables, but those are mostly quantitative measurable (some by
grouping) ones (median income, previous support, etc). what about the
effect of pro-bush sentiment given 9/11 and the war(s)? it has been said
that the e-voting areas coincide with rural areas (or areas where
support has been swinging away from democrats and towards republicans).
how do the results (in florida) correlate against similar results from
other states? how about with other races in the same counties?

much as i would like this sort of stuff to be true, i am not *convinced*
that the conclusions are concretely established. caveat: i say this
without access to the data/analysis.

	--ravi